<div dir="ltr"><div>Hi,<br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le lun. 13 févr. 2023 à 14:11, Andy Townsend <<a href="mailto:ajt1047@gmail.com">ajt1047@gmail.com</a>> a écrit :<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>> By the way, I saw some changes leading to x10 contribution
rates and be criticized as disrupting longstanding practices or
established tagging.</p>
<p>An actual example would be really useful here.</p></div></blockquote><div>Here are some, very specific tagging but whatever:</div><div>* Back to 2013, replacing power=station and power=sub_station by power=substation and power=plant</div><div>Respectively 40000 + 110000 in 5 years (30k/year) versus 500000 + 70000 in 8 years (71k/year) => x2.3</div><div><br></div><div>* In 2018, replacement of voltage-high/voltage-low by voltage:primary/voltage:secondary</div><div>Respectively 6200 + 4600 in 8 years (1350/year) versus 110000+95000 in 5 years (41k/year) => x30<br></div><div><br></div><div>* In 2021, replacement of tower:type=branch by line_management=branch or split or cross</div><div>Respectively 3600 in 7 years (515/year) versus 22030 in 2 years (11k/year) => x21</div><div><br></div><div>This is not the only indicator to look at and many problems remain to be solved regarding this tagging.</div><div>But practice establishment is no barrier with good documentation and encouragement, especially when changes occur every few years.<br></div><div><br></div><div>And it's not for blaming anyone who defined how things were at first, we'd better begin with something even incomplete and improve it continuously.<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>
<p>> Establishment nor longstanding practices shouldn't be valid
reasons on their own to justify decision making about tagging. <br>
</p>
<p>Indeed - if a proposal (even a reorganisation of existing usage)
allows better information to be collected then it makes sense to
do it. The "diplomatic" reorganisation was one such (though the
implementation was botched). In this case, I'm not convinced that
this proposal has any benefit. We have edge cases now; after this
proposal we will still have a whole bunch of slightly different
edge cases.</p></div></blockquote><div>I completely agree about edge cases and it's a way better red flag to investigate.</div><div>It's not about longstanding practices. Inconsistencies and edge cases can occur with even 2 month of experience on a given tagging scheme.<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>
<p>> How about considering tagging as an independent valuable
thing we should take care of as well?</p>
<p>Because it isn't? It's literally just describing how things are
stored within OSM. Anyone coming to OpenStreetMap as a mapper for
the first time won't see tags at all - their editor will look
after that for them. A data consumer will have a simplified view
of the world and will have to map OSM concepts into the ones that
they are interested in.<br></p></div></blockquote><div>it's not as strong as I think it should.</div><div>We are still arguing on no deprecating and longstanding practices while it can be perfectly valuable with appropriate documentation.</div><div>Tagging we collectively build there is usable both inside and outside of OSM (up to anyone and with all due risks as it is provided as this with no liability).</div><div>Many businesses sell databases with a price based upon the data they contain, not their structure. <br></div><div>OSM has got a pretty unique 360° semantic space and it is valuable on its own (not sold, not my point). This value comes from diversity, continuous improvement and documentation, not from longstanding practices.</div><div><br></div><div>Regarding the valuable point you make on tagging meta data making osm tags invisible for common users, I wonder why we are busy with writing readable proposals and then stuck on updating manually every toolchain with the same information.<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><p>
</p>and the benefit needs to be proportional to the necessary
upheaval<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>We have no framework to count benefits, no feedback on experience and some upheaval still exist by design. It's not fair.</div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">In a nutshell, there is many room for tagging management improvement and we should fill it... or endlessly spend energy about changes we can't handle.</div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">Best regards</div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">François<br></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le lun. 13 févr. 2023 à 14:11, Andy Townsend <<a href="mailto:ajt1047@gmail.com">ajt1047@gmail.com</a>> a écrit :<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>> By the way, I saw some changes leading to x10 contribution
rates and be criticized as disrupting longstanding practices or
established tagging.</p>
<p>An actual example would be really useful here.</p>
<p>> Establishment nor longstanding practices shouldn't be valid
reasons on their own to justify decision making about tagging. <br>
</p>
<p>Indeed - if a proposal (even a reorganisation of existing usage)
allows better information to be collected then it makes sense to
do it. The "diplomatic" reorganisation was one such (though the
implementation was botched). In this case, I'm not convinced that
this proposal has any benefit. We have edge cases now; after this
proposal we will still have a whole bunch of slightly different
edge cases.</p>
<p>> How about considering tagging as an independent valuable
thing we should take care of as well?</p>
<p>Because it isn't? It's literally just describing how things are
stored within OSM. Anyone coming to OpenStreetMap as a mapper for
the first time won't see tags at all - their editor will look
after that for them. A data consumer will have a simplified view
of the world and will have to map OSM concepts into the ones that
they are interested in. <br>
</p>
<p>As a concrete example, here:</p>
<p><a href="https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L6003" target="_blank">https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L6003</a></p>
<p>is where I take a bunch of things from OSM and map them into a
concept that is displayed on a map ("Variety Stores", shown with a
"£" symbol**). A map for a different platform, here:</p>
<p><a href="https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/mkgmap_style_ajt/blob/master/transform_03.lua#L1760" target="_blank">https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/mkgmap_style_ajt/blob/master/transform_03.lua#L1760</a></p>
<p>has a mapping onto a different category, "General Stores". This
is because this map is for Garmin devices which (by default) have
a hardcoded series of categories that the search menus know about,
and "Variety Stores" isn't one of them, but "General Stores" is.</p>
<p>Almost no-one in the outside world is going to want to
distinguish between the actual OSM values here; they're only
interested in their own real-world concepts. In many cases this
may be much broader-brush, perhaps "shops that sell food" vs
"shows that primarily sell non-food", or even just "shops".<br>
</p>
<p>Anyone suggesting widespread changes such as this needs to
explain how this proposal will help with at least one of the
following:</p>
<ul>
<li>Allowing new mappers to contribute to OSM easier than they
currently can<br>
</li>
<li>Allowing some nuance to be captured that can't be captured now</li>
<li>Make life easier for data consumers in some way</li>
</ul>
<p>and the benefit needs to be proportional to the necessary
upheaval (which in this case would be significant). Note that
"satisfying the data normalisation urges of people familiar with
working with databases" isn't on that list. <br>
</p>
<p>Best Regards,</p>
<p>Andy</p>
<p>** apologies to anyone with a pocketful of € instead of £<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>On 13/02/2023 12:21, François Lacombe
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hello<br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le ven. 10 févr. 2023
à 19:29, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <<a href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>>
a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>Or to be more specific solved problems, if any, are
much smaller than size <br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">of change of longstanding tagging
practices.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
To me, it's a return of experience matter and a debate we
should provide with facts.</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">OSM has been created to question
longstanding practices, how the same can be raised to prevent
its own evolution nowadays?<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">Many attempts to change longstanding
practices in the past had unleashed contribution and bring
more visibility on covered topics.</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">I made a presentation at SOTM France
last year about what benefits tagging development brings to
OSM.</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">Studying chronology tabs on taginfo
learn us a lot about how the community reacts with such
changing, despite changes may be slow or significant.<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">The methodology and efforts deployed to
achieve the rollout of new tagging should be adapted in regard
of amounts of features to retag, yes (and we will never be
perfect from that perspective).</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">By the way, I saw some changes leading
to x10 contribution rates and be criticized as disrupting
longstanding practices or established tagging.<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">Establishment nor longstanding
practices shoudn't be valid reasons on their own to justify
decision making about tagging. <br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">How about considering tagging as an
independent valuable thing we should take care of as well?</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">Best regards</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">François<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</blockquote></div>